UK violent image laws

[MMI]

Cherry,

IMHO the picture would fall foul of the new law if it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual gratification, because it quite clearly appears to threaten your own life.

Contrary to icey's opinion, I believe it is for the prosecution to prove that such a picture meets the definition of extreme pornography in the first instance, not for the defence to prove it does not. But in this case, I think the prosecution would have a pretty easy time of it - the hardest part would be to prove the photograph was taken for purposes of sexual gratification. That cannot be assumed, but it might be held that it is self-evident.

If and when the prosecution make their case, and it looks like they have established beyond resonable doubt that the image is an extreme pornographic one, you can then produce your defences or rebuttals. If you raise any doubt in the judge's mind (or if it goes before a jury, in their minds) then you should be acquitted.

If, for example, a picture displayed a kitchen knife on a worktop, next to a sliced apple, say, with you standing apart from that worktop, but naked and with a dotted line drawn across your throat, the prosecution would have a much harder time proving your life appeared to be under threat, even though the same elements were present, and there was a clear sexual undertone (overtone?).

But regardless of what is in the picture, rest assured that it is not illegal to point a knife to your throat in order to get (or give) a sexual thrill: the crime is in having a photograph of it!

That's my take on the law: I don't think icey agrees. I wonder if any English Law Lords are reading this thread who would like to comment?

[MMI]

I've deleted this posting because it was a duplication ...

But, Hey, everyone: this is my 69th message!!!!

[icey]

^ lol ..congrats on your 69'er

regardless of what is in the picture, rest assured that it is not illegal to point a knife to your throat in order to get (or give) a sexual thrill: the crime is in having a photograph of it!

doing it is fine, unless there's an accident and you appear at a&e they can then report it if they have any concerns, although its unlikely they will, there has been the odd case.such as the spanner case.

'operation spanner'
background

The police had obtained a video which they believed depicted acts of sadistic torture, and they launched a murder investigation, convinced that the people in the video were being tortured before being killed. This resulted in raids on a number of properties, and a number of arrests.

The apparent "victims" were alive and well, and soon told the police that they were participating in private homosexual BDSM activities. Although all of those seen in the videos stated that they were willing participants in the activities depicted on the videos, the police and Crown Prosecution Service insisted on pressing charges. Sixteen men were charged with various offences, including "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" (ABH).

Heavily influenced by the nineteenth century boxing case of R v. Coney, the trial judge ruled that consent was not a valid defence to ABH, and the defendants pleaded guilty. The case was appealed first to the High Court, then to the House of Lords. In March 1993, the appeal was dismissed (R v Brown (1993) 2 All ER 75) by 3-2 majority of the Lords, with Lord Templeman in particular declaring that:

"In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."
An attempt to overturn the convictions in the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 failed (see Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. United Kingdom).

The legal rationale for the decisions were broadly speaking as follows:



(UK courts) A person does not have the legal ability to consent to receive an act which will seriously harm them, such as branding or other intense activities of a sadomasochistic nature.

(European Courts) Whilst a person has a general right of free will, a state may as a matter of public policy restrict that in certain cases, for example for the general public good and for the protection of morals. The present case was judged by the European Court to have fallen within the sovereign scope of the UK Government's right to determine its legality, and human rights legislation would not overrule this.

That's my take on the law: I don't think icey agrees. I wonder if any English Law Lords are reading this thread who would like to comment?

ive looked and looked and all ive found is that the defences in the 'papers' i posted above are the only defences you can have, in this case its more a guilty until proven innocent than innocent until proven guilty and that was never the case before ..or at least not officially.. as you can see you have to 'prove' your innocence, though im certainly not a law expert in anyway and would love to hear from english law lord myelf as im not the smartest brick in the block when it comes to interpretation and relaying things lol, the explanation of it was given in a presentation/speech by representatives of backlash at a fetish fair/demos we attended, our barrister and looking around on the net, but i appreciate as with anything things can get misinterpreted ...by me especially and i hope they or i am wrong!

[MMI]

Thanks for the congrats, icey ... If only I'd had someone to do it with ...

You case histories are very interesting. I do not have access to the law reports you cite, but I'm scouting round to get some background.

However, it seems to me, your concern is now about the commission of acts which are deemed illegal, rather than just the possession of extereme pornographic images. The Coney case and the AG's Reference, so far as I can see, have nothing to do with images of any kind, but are concerned with whether or not one can consent to being injured. And the answer appears to be, yes you can, unless the act causing the injury is illegal itself.

In the Brown case, Templeman LJ appears to confirm that sadomasochism is an illegal act. If that is so, then a masochist cannot give legal consent to a sadistic act against him.

S/M has always taken place and has always been an "underground" activity. If the law is as stated above, it will continue to be an undeground activity: but it won't stop. BDSM clubs will adopt a "front" - a fetish group, perhaps. If we had thought it was legal for a while in today's more enlightened society, we were wrong: society isn't more enlightened, it's more puritanical. The difference is, now society is focused against sexual deviancy where as before it was against moral corruption.

[DOMLORD]

Hmmmm..... have they started to take away firearms to, on the basis that to own one would obviously mean rectal, vaginal, or oral harm and penis action isn't a serious enough punishment. this all smells like the congressional inquest into heavy metal music led by Al Gore (saviour of the human race).

[cherry-uk]

Damn! looks like I'm gonna have to thin the set down then just to be on the safe side.....I guess I'll have to be more careful in the future....thanks for your help on this its really appreciated
x cherry

[Rubberwolf]

Time to put my three peneth worth in about this one. I met the news that the govt were passing this law with the same dread as Icey. The idea that, just in case you are doing something you shouldn't the govt have passed a law that allows them to monitor your behaviour/actions even more closely. They can also seize your pc and have a lot of fun snooping your hard drive. Does anybody remember those two way TVs that people were so affraid of in 1984.

As for sexually violent content. Hmmm.

Evil Dead - Guilty
Elm St - Guilty
Saw - Guilty

You name the Horror movie, it is probably covered by this law. Damn, there goes my DVD collection.

You could also include 8mm, and other block busters. Hell, there is even a lot of bondage and death in Dr Who. Damn, I think I will just have to hand myself in to the local nick.

Hold on a minute. If I suddenly developed a crucifixion fetish, then owning a little gold crucifix (Complete with naked bloke nailed to cross) that I should also be found guilty?

Oh dear, I think I will just have to confess all and be done with it.

(By the way, does the law just cover images, or can they imply what they want just from looking at your favourates menu?)

[MMI]

If I were a judge and cherry's picture (as she described it) was under consideration as a potentially extreme pornographic image, I would be inclined to say that I was convinced that the picture appeared to be one where her life was threatened, by reference to the fact that she had a knife at her throat. As for whether the picture had been produced for sexual gratification, that would depend on circumstances, as the Act itself says, and I would expect the prosecution to prove it. If they failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, I would be acquit cherry without her having even to defend herself. IF the prosecution presented a convincing case, cherry would then be able to present whatever defence she had in order to raise a doubt in my mind.

Rubberwolf - 1984 is happening in UK, where CCTV cameras are festooned everywhere you go!

Dr Who's primary purpose is not sexual gratification (although I bet Georgia Moffett has caused a surge in the sales of Kleenex!) Nor are crucifixes worn for sexual gratification.

And, so far as I am aware, the police cannot look at your computer without a search warrant, and they need reasonable grounds for suspicion to get one.

So if you keep your perverted thoughts to yourself, you can watch Dr Who destroy the Daleks and then go to Mass without any fear. (Best not to watch the episodes with the Cybermen in, though!)

[Thorne]

Rubberwolf - 1984 is happening in UK, where CCTV cameras are festooned everywhere you go!

I don't have any problem with CCTV in public places. Ultimately they are for the safety of the public. Sure, they can be used for illicit purposes but that's what oversight committees are for. But in general, if you aren't committing a crime you have nothing to fear. If you are committing a crime you're more likely to get caught. The real problem is, What does the government consider a crime?

Dr Who's primary purpose is not sexual gratification (although I bet Georgia Moffett has caused a surge in the sales of Kleenex!) Nor are crucifixes worn for sexual gratification.

For most people this is probably true. But what about those fringe elements who are watching Dr. Who for sexual gratification? Or someone who uses a crucifix to stimulate themselves sexually? Should these items be banned because they can be used to stimulate? And what if the judge should find something sexually stimulating that you do not? There are many different fetishes out there. Not everyone is stimulated by them all. Which ones should be banned?

No, it's a crapshoot when you let the government run the bedroom. Especially since a seemingly large percentage of government officials are among the worst offenders.

[MMI]

For most people this is probably true. But what about those fringe elements who are watching Dr. Who for sexual gratification? Or someone who uses a crucifix to stimulate themselves sexually? Should these items be banned because they can be used to stimulate? And what if the judge should find something sexually stimulating that you do not? There are many different fetishes out there. Not everyone is stimulated by them all. Which ones should be banned?

The key here, I think, is that the Act in question specifies that the images must be produced (not looked at) "solely or principally" for purposes of sexual gratification.

No, it's a crapshoot when you let the government run the bedroom. Especially since a seemingly large percentage of government officials are among the worst offenders.

I'm in full agreement. But it seems that the militant wing of the modern puritan movement is more influential, at least, here in the UK

[Thorne]

I'm in full agreement. But it seems that the militant wing of the modern puritan movement is more influential, at least, here in the UK

This is even worse! That means that any images on your drive, whether you actually looked at them or not, can be used to convict you! Many ads, some even on this site, could be considered violent, and would leave images in the Temporary Internet Folder, whether you actually look at them or not. Unless you have at least a modicum of computer skills and are able to figure out how to delete those files you can be held liable for them. Is that what the law is saying?

[MMI]

This is even worse! That means that any images on your drive, whether you actually looked at them or not, can be used to convict you!

This is icey's point. She believes that is what the law says. And, to a point, I agree, it does. Where icey and I differ is that she believes we have moved to a "guilty-until-proved-innocent" regime, whereas I don't.

It is now illegal to be in possession of certain types of image. If it can be shown that an image on your hard drive is an "extreme pornographic image" (the prosecution must demonstrate that it is, but sometimes things are so obvious they prove themselves), and that you know - or should have known - they were there, then you are guilty of the crime. The prosecution must also prove, for example, that it is your hard drive - there have been cases which have failed because it could not be said that even though the accused was the owner of the computer, it was not certain that he was the person who downloaded the images because several people had access to and used the same computer. He might not even have been aware that the pictures were there at all.

"Possession" of an image in this context is a legal term and the definition is necessarily complex. Knowledge of possession and control are key elements, however.

Once all these things have been proved beyond reasonable doubt - and in many cases, it will be the easiest thing in the world to do that (what possible reason could I have for having dozens of photgraphs of weeping women chained naked to a bed or to a wall, with needles pushed through her nipples and weights dangling from her clitoris, other than sexual gratification?) - then it is up to the defence to show that there was, in fact, a valid purpose for having them. That's refuting the prosecution's case, not proving your innocence.

[Thorne]

Okay, MMI. Given that all this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, can anyone tell me why ANYTHING to do with sexual stimulation or gratification should be prosecuted as a felony? From what I'm reading, you can spend more time in prison for this than you could for selling heroin to grade school kids! Do the powers that be really think that arresting people for enjoying erotic images, even if they are "edgy", will do anything to stem the tide of real crime?

My recommendation to the good people of the UK is to have petitions passed to force lawmakers to open their own computers to oversight, just to make certain that they aren't violating their own laws. Then do your damndest to vote the idiots who are supporting this kind of trash out of office.

Of course, if politics over there is anything like it is over here, that isn't likely to happen. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some dizzy congressperson try to institute a similar law here, based on the "enormous success" of the UK law.

What a crock. I think it's time to find a lonely cabin in the mountains and start building a moat.

[MMI]

Given that all this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it ...

The Act is a fact (sorry about the silly rhyme!). I have given my interpretation of it, and (to be frank) I am in no position to do so: I am not a lawyer or a politician, nor even a policeman. But these threads give us the opportunity to sound pompous, and I can never pass up an opportunity like that!

... Do the powers that be really think that arresting people for enjoying erotic images, even if they are "edgy", will do anything to stem the tide of real crime?

Let's see. I'm the Home Secretary, responsible for law and order. Maybe during quiet periods, I'm canoodling with my personal secretary without my wife's knowledge or approval. Meanwhile, there's a spate of arrests of people - ordinary Joe Soaps, actors, businessmen, priests, glittering pop stars and (yes) politicians and judges - who have been caught exchanging pictures of an obscene nature, mostly involving the rape and torture of minors. What shall I do to let it be known I'm "on the case?" I know - I'll make it illegal to possess pictures of such activities. That way people will see what an effective politician I am, and maybe no-one'll find out that my secretary enjoys more than one form of "dictation".

So I pass the law (or, rather, I submit a Bill to Parliament). It is debated. Various pressure groups and lobbies try to get particular amendments made to the Bill before it is passed - including, as I have said earlier, the militant wing of the Puritan Party, and by the time the Bill becomes an Act (passed into law), lo and behold, photographs depicting acts of depravity have become outlawed.

"But," you interject, "that cannot possibly include pictures of a private nature showing consensual BDSM activities, can it?"

As a result of this discussion, I have learnt that under English law, you cannot consent to receive injuries (other than of the mildest and trivial kind) and thereby confer legality on an illegal act. This was originally decided in a case involving an illegal boxing match in the 19th century, but icey has brought us up-to-date with her summary of "Operation Spanner" where acts of sadomasochism were stated to be illegal by Lord Templeman and 2 other Law Lords (there were, by the way, 2 more judges who dissented from the judgement). Lord Templeman said:

The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."

Summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
Case report: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/R_v._Brown

Then do your damndest to vote the idiots who are supporting this kind of trash out of office.

Trouble is, they're not idiots, and most are not in office. They're self-glorifying lobbyists on a mission to rid the country of whatever particular bee they have in their bonnets for the time being. And it's a form of fascism. People who do not agree are branded as perverts or decadents, or downright criminals, whose opinions are not worth considering because they are wrong!

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some dizzy congressperson try to institute a similar law here, based on the "enormous success" of the UK law.

... see you in jail, then - lol

[denuseri]

allmost societies try and fail to monitor as well as control the behavioral compunctions of its members,, from before Agustus to modern days,, people find a way to indulge in just about anything with or without societal aproval, the goverments are like beating the ocean for having waves,lmao

[denuseri]

as for the individual fanatic purist movements,, look at the recent so called super religious sect that got busted for polygamy and child abuse, oxymoronic huh?

[Tojo]

I've been fighting against injustice such as this for so long I don't have much fight left.

As far as having to prove your innocence- geez where have you guys been? If you're charged with a crime, it's been up to you to prove your innocence for many years. (My bond ends next month btw.....)

This thread reminds me, I still haven't heard back from our new Government re the censorship of the Internet in Australia. They're proposing all sorts of things, whereby any PC which could concievably be viewed by kids won't be able to view 'adult' sites.

As I've said- these things move in cycles- we appear to be entering a conservative era. People will get tired of that & it'll change again.

[MMI]

That's a point of view. A cynical one. But then, it seems to me that, under any Common Law system, truth comes a very poor second to a cogent and convincing argument.

However, I'm aware of many cases where the Crown Prosecution Service has not prosecuted because they felt they could not prove the charges, and of other instancces where the courts have dismissed the case because the prosecution failed to convince the judge/jury of the accused's guilt.

This thread reminds me, I still haven't heard back from our new Government re the censorship of the Internet in Australia. They're proposing all sorts of things, whereby any PC which could concievably be viewed by kids won't be able to view 'adult' sites.

I wonder if they'll consult China on how to do this ...

[denuseri]

yeah china is building rapidly into a majior player on the world stage, but hey, its the europeans and americans that are helping push thier ox cart with all the imports we buy

[IvanDobsky]

From the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm

Also:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7370807.stm

I find it entertaining that you can legally commit certain acts but if you take photographs of you doing so you are breaking the new law.

Madness!

[underdog]

personally i coulnt give a bleeping hoot....if some beaurocrat decides to have a pop at my images id love to ask the vanilla sales man what he gets up to behind doors.
age of consent ect well thats fine...one of the main reasons i left the uk is because of the big brother rules...i dont buy there crap they dont have to buy mine....i can only hope like all of the other privacy laws that are being abused are being so by somone who doesnt enjoy abuse before knowledge and understanding...lol

[Thorne]

Just wondering here, but how about a law requiring public officials, both elected and appointed, to submit their own personal computers, as well as any computers they use in their positions, and any computers used by their families, to periodic, random testing, to insure they are abiding by their own laws?

Well, it's a nice dream, anyway.

[denuseri]

its an excellent dream sir, unfortunately i dont think they will ever do it ,,sighs

[underdog]

Just wondering here, but how about a law requiring public officials, both elected and appointed, to submit their own personal computers, as well as any computers they use in their positions, and any computers used by their families, to periodic, random testing, to insure they are abiding by their own laws?

Well, it's a nice dream, anyway.

totally agree...and we could probably swap photos...lol